Comments on: No Neutrality Regulation in 2009

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:48:37 +0000

In that case, the right thing to legislate is incentives to competition, not “network neutrality” (a term which should probably be banned from serious discussions because it has no definition).

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:48:37 +0000

In that case, the right thing to legislate is incentives to competition, not “network neutrality” (a term which should probably be banned from serious discussions because it has no definition).

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:48:37 +0000

In that case, the right thing to legislate is incentives to competition, not “network neutrality” (a term which should probably be banned from serious discussions because it has no definition).

By: quanticle

quanticle — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:44:24 +0000

As Jayel stated, the market for the majority of broadband users is not free. It is, at best a duopoly between the phone company's DSL and the cable company's cable internet. In my case, I don't even have that. I live too far from the phone company's CO, so I have to make do with a monopoly.

So, how exactly am I going to get "market enforced neutrality", when there isn't a market?

By: Lipoescultura

Lipoescultura — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 13:44:34 +0000

Market-enforced neutrality is really the future of the web. there´s no other way.

By: Jayel Aheram

Jayel Aheram — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:51:54 +0000

I am not entirely convinced that "market-enforced neutrality" will manifest in a market that is not entirely free or competitive. Of course, I am also not convinced that government-mandated neutrality will be beneficial either.

The only way for a "market-enforced neutrality" to manifest is for the government to remain neutral when consumers attempt to circumvent traffic-shaping. But that will not be the case. Internet service providers will call upon the state apparatus to enforce its traffic-shaping and censorship of data against consumers.